October 1, 2012

The media have also treated Romney as the incumbent, pouncing on every word and gesture, seizing on every mistake and inventing errors where none exist. Romney’s so-called “gaffes” have one thing in common: they are all statements of fact. He is being held to a presidential standard--for presidents should know better than to tell all--while Obama’s outright lies to the nation (on Libya, the debt, etc.) are ignored by the media.

Let me offer an alternate template: The media have been treating Romney as the Republican, which he is, and Obama as the Democrat, which he is.

Romney has very little to complain about. Most of his problems are self inflicted. The press don't like him much, but a large fraction of republicans don't like him much either. His is not a likable guy and he is the wrong person for these particular economic times. On this point Gingrich had it exactly right, appointing a financier as the candidate after the largest financial meltdown in living history was dumb politics.

The challenge the Romster faces is that the Demos and the media are trying the biggest psy op since Josef Goebbels and we seem to be at the end game where everybody, including UVa guru, Larry Sabato, is pronouncing the election over because everybody thinks Choom is going to win.

If you understand that, you know this thing is, at the very least, up for grabs.

AnUnreasonableTroll said...

Romney has very little to complain about. Most of his problems are self inflicted. The press don't like him much, but a large fraction of republicans don't like him much either. His is not a likable guy and he is the wrong person for these particular economic times. On this point Gingrich had it exactly right, appointing a financier as the candidate after the largest financial meltdown in living history was dumb politics.

His is not a likable guy and he is the wrong person for these particular economic times.

That is either hilarious or sad, I can't decide which. Maybe both.

I love the idea that throwing out the word "financier" for Romney somehow makes it sound like he is responsible for the financial crisis, rather than that he understands how to run a financially sound enterprise.

MayBee said...I love the idea that throwing out the word "financier" for Romney somehow makes it sound like he is responsible for the financial crisis, rather than that he understands how to run a financially sound enterprise.

Er... the election hasn't happened yet, so we don't know if Romney is a failed candidate. See, a president can be declared to have failed if he fails to meet the benchmarks he said he would meet (such as, unemployment at X levels if we do Y), but a candidate does not fail until we see who wins/loses.

The paranoia and delusion of the right wing knows no bounds. Why don't you take responsibility for yourself and your failed candidate?

Says the bootlicker for B. Hussein "It's All Bush's Fault!" Obama.

That you can type such idiocy with a straight face - after exposure of the State-Run Media's deliberate water-carrying of the administration's Benghazi lies and exposure of blatantly biased polling - reveals you to be either a hopeless partisan hack or a charter member of the Joe Biden Super Genius Club. You decide which.

Because Romney shows up and Obama hides. And the media feel the need to gainsay whatever Romney says or does on behalf of their absent friend.

Obama loves them, and when Obama doesn't show up, or says things that hurt, or lies again and again... Well, they know deep down that their good friend Mr. Obama must have darn good reasons for it. Reasons that he just doesn't have time to explain right now.

But that Romney bastard keeps hanging around, and damn it, he's starting to make sense. He wants them to think about all sorts of things that make them downright uncomfortable. Obviously, they have to make him go away before they go and think themselves right out of love.

"Reagan didn’t win two elections, the second in a landslide, because the media let, or helped him. Bush didn’t win, or not lose because of the media, either.

They won because they understood that campaigns, not media outlets, win elections. That’s a long known fact embodied in the grain of wisdom that Reagan went over the heads of the media directly to the people who elected him.

If the GOP wants to win in November, they’d do well to stop whining about the media and find a way to win, not look and sound like losers."

I think the accumulative effects of watching obama bumble and stammer during the debates will be the turning point. Not anything Romney might say. I think the media knows deep down the little black jesus has a jaw of glass and is not up to combat if they have to pin his adversarys arms everytime he runs. Just ask Hillary about that.

-- Hillary did win the debates, it just didn't matter because the DNC robbed her of the delegates she won in Florida to stack the deck and prevent the super delegates from moving to solidify her support. That and people don't pay as much attention to the debates as we'd all like to pretend we do.

The challenge the Romster faces is that the Demos and the media are trying the biggest psy op since Josef Goebbels

The paranoia and delusion of the right wing knows no bounds. Why don't you take responsibility for yourself and your failed candidate?

Hate ta tell ya, but anytime the polls have to be skewed in double digits to make their guy look good - that's the failed candidate.

machine said...

Reagan didn’t win two elections, the second in a landslide, because the media let, or helped him. Bush didn’t win, or not lose because of the media, either.

They won because they understood that campaigns, not media outlets, win elections. That’s a long known fact embodied in the grain of wisdom that Reagan went over the heads of the media directly to the people who elected him.

Gee, I thought it was because Bush 41 ran a racist ad that was so unfair and Reagan was an affable dunce who wrapped himself in the flag.

Romney’s so-called “gaffes” have one thing in common: they are all statements of fact.

Romney:

I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.

I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with -- with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it. (my bolding)

So Mitt suggests that cold fusion, if possible, might be an alternative source of energy. He notes that Utah "solved" it, but can't duplicate it (probably because the scientists involved either fudged the results deliberately or let their enthusiasm carry them too far).

But his suggesting a look into cold fusion marks Romney, to you, as a deluded liar.

With an honest media we would see the pools of blood from 14 kids murdered with guns given to drug lords by President Obama's administration on every front page (see Univision's latest article picture). Gun running protected by an arguably illegal claim of executive privilege.

We would see the face and name of each child murdered. And actual questions asked of the President for his actions in protecting his "justice department" of fools.

But, we rather protect Obama at the cost of dead kids. What a sad and pathetic country we live in.

Why is there a double standard? Wherever there is a double standard there is a difference. The perceived difference between Republicans and Democrats has favored the Democrats for the last sixty years. But everything human changes; everything human needs reform. The liberals values' are in power; power corrupts; liberalism needs reform. Easy for me to see and say. But liberalism IS reform to liberals. They can't imagine that they and all their works and all their empty promises need reform. No. No. No. No. Suppress the stories about Obama; laugh at Mitt; make up stories about Mitt. That is my "why".

How will it all end? Maybe when Obama has to debate without a teleprompter. Other events are imaginable. But he has spent all our money; the end of this phase is close.

So Mitt suggests that cold fusion, if possible, might be an alternative source of energy.

Yep, it's crazy - cold fusion has never even come CLOSE to being real. It's the domain of pseudoscience and total cranks. It's even nuttier than Obama's unnecessary (and wasteful) "green" and "alternative" energy kick. And that's tough to outdo. I'm talking eye-crossingly bonkers.

Not to mention (but I always do) cold fusion ISN'T "ways to conduct electricity," so - 100% - he has absolutely has NO CLUE what he's talking about.

He notes that Utah "solved" it, but can't duplicate it (probably because the scientists involved either fudged the results deliberately or let their enthusiasm carry them too far).

No - nothing nefarious or over-excited about it - the "real" scientists who looked into the Mormon's work said they were "incompetent" and "delusional." AKA fruitcakes who can't even do the simplest things right.

But they get the full endorsement of Mr. "Competence" who claims he enjoys firing people if they can't do a job. I would add, unless they go to his church.

But his suggesting a look into cold fusion marks Romney, to you, as a deluded liar.

Nope - never called him a liar - I said he's nuts and, last time I checked, that's what "delusional" meant.

And I think he's HONESTLY nuts. I think he believes, if a scientific enterprise can't be duplicated, it's been "solved." Though anyone with any knowledge of science will tell you that's crazy, because a problem can't be "solved" if it can't be duplicated.

And the cherry on top is, all this wrongness - each layer of it, madness, wrapped in and over each other - came out because he was trying to convince us he believes "in basic science."